Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.:- The appellant, Sivaswami, was elected as the President of the Koothanur Panchayat in the year 1960 and has been functioning as such since then. The Collector of Thanjavur, who is also the Inspector of Panchayats came across a number of instances of improper dealing with the moneys of the Panchayat by the appellant. The latter who was called upon to explain by the Collector, did not do so to the satisfaction of that authority. Conformably to the provisions of section 150 of the Madras Panchayats Act, 1958, the Collector who was also the Inspector of Panchayats forwarded the papers to the Tahsildar of Kumbakonam with a proposal for the removal of the appellant from the office of President, for the consideration of the Panchayat. A meeting of the Panchayat was convened on 30th August, 1961. It was presided over by the Tahsildar. Of the fifteen members of the Panchayat seven alone attended the meeting, the other eight, which included the appellant, abstained. The meeting unanimously passed a resolution accepting the Collector’s proposal. On 11th October, 1961, the Collector issued a notification removing the appellant from office. In the meanwhile, the appellant, purporting to act in his capacity as the President of the Panchayat, convened, by a notice dated 31st August, 1961, a meeting of the Panchayat for 11th September, 1961, to rescind the resolution of the Panchayat regarding his removal. At the meeting held on 11th September, 1961, it is said that the seven members, who passed the resolution accepting the proposal of the Inspector for the removal of the President, did not attend. It is also said that a resolution was passed at this meeting cancelling the earlier resolution. There is, however, no information available as to how many voted in favour of the resolution. Armed with the later resolution, the appellant, applied to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the notification of the Collector, dated 11th October, 1961. Srinivasan, J., rejected the application holding that the later resolution of the Panchayat was invalid inasmuch as the matters pertaining to removal of the President from office could not form the normal business of the Panchayat and that it would not be competent for that body to transact such business except by following the procedure prescribed by section 150 of the Act. That conclusion is challenged in this appeal. That conclusion is challenged in this appeal. There is yet another infirmity in the case of the appellant. It is not disputed that the meeting of the Panchayat convened for 30th August, 1961, for consideration of the proposal of the Inspector was a valid meeting which transacted its business in the prescribed way. The power to rescind the resolution passed in that meeting is claimed to vest in the Panchayat under rule 9 of the Rules framed under the Madras Panchayats Act, 1958. That rule states: “No resolution of a Panchayat shall be modified or cancelled within three months after the passing thereof except at a meeting specially convened in that behalf and by a resolution of a Panchayat supported by not less than one-half of the sanctioned number of members.” In the present case the resolution of 11th September, 1961, which purported to cancel the earlier resolution of 30th August, 1961, was not one, passed after the period prescribed by the above rule. Secondly, it has not been shown that not less than one-half of the sanctioned number of fifteen members voted in support of the resolution. It is, however, unnecessary to pursue that matter, as we are of the opinion that the appellant’s case has to fail on a more substantial ground. Mr. K. V. Sankaran appearing for the appellant contends that as it could be open to a Panchayat in the normal course of its business to cancel or modify any previous resolution passed by it in its corporate capacity, the resolution dated 11th September, 1961 must be held to have validly superseded the previous one. Support for this contention was sought from the terms of rule 4 (1) of the Rules contained at page 155 of Volume of the Guide Book on Panchayat Development in Madras State. That rule merely relates to the obligation of the President of the Panchayat to convene a meeting on the requisition in writing of not less than one-third of the members. But the question in the present case is, whether the Panchayat, having once passed a valid resolution for the removal of its President under section 150 of the Act, would have a power to cancel that resolution. But the question in the present case is, whether the Panchayat, having once passed a valid resolution for the removal of its President under section 150 of the Act, would have a power to cancel that resolution. On behalf of the appellant realiance is placed on the general rule of the law relating to Corporations, where it has been accepted that a power of amotion of a corporate officer is an incident of its normal powers. In Halsbury’s Laws of England (3rd Edition), Volume 9 at page 36, dealing with the matter of vacating the office by an officer of the Corporation, it is said: Amotion means depriving a corporate officer of his office. A power of amotion is incident to a Corportation. It is necessary to the good order and government of corporate bodies that there should be such a power, and a corporation may by its incidental power to make bye-laws confer upon itself power to amove for just cause, although there is no express power by the charter or prescription to make such a bye-law. “ Again at page 40: A power to restore after amotion is implied in every case where there is a power to elect to an office........................................” It is argued that inasmuch as the President of a Panchayat is elected by the other members of the Panchayat, there should exist, under the ordinary law, an inherent power in the body to remove him from office as well as to restore him after removal. Such an inherent power has no doubt been recognised under the Common Law in England. In Rex v. Richardson1, it was taken as established law that a power of amotion is incident to every corporation. A corporation in England is created by a Royal Charter or by virtue of a statute. In our country a Corporation can be created only by or under a statute. The powers of the Corporation have, therefore, to be ascertaned only by reference to the instrument of its creation, whether such an instrument be a Royal Charter or a statute. A corporation in England is created by a Royal Charter or by virtue of a statute. In our country a Corporation can be created only by or under a statute. The powers of the Corporation have, therefore, to be ascertaned only by reference to the instrument of its creation, whether such an instrument be a Royal Charter or a statute. In Dillon’s Commentaries on the Law of Municiapl Corporations2the rule as to amotion is stated thus: “ The question not being judicially settled as to our municipal corporations, the opinion is ventured that, in the absence of an express grant or statute conferring or limiting the power, the common council of one of our Municipal Corporations as ordinarily constituted, does possess, in the absence of any express or implied restriction in the charter, the incidental power, not only to make by-laws, but for cause, to expel its members, and, for cause, to remove corporate officers, whether elected by it or by the people” . What, therefore, one has to see is, whether there is an express or implied restriction so far as the Panchayat Act of 1958 is concerned in the Common Law power of a Corporation to remove its President. The Act provides for the constitution of a Panchayat as a representative body and with a view to set up local administrative organizations in rural areas on the basis of election. The powers of a Panchayat are contained in Chapter III of the Act. Section 32 provides: “ The President shall cease to hold office as such on the expiry of his term of office as a member or on his otherwise ceasing to be a member.” Section 26 provides for cases where a member of Panchayat shall cease to hold office. The appellant has not suffered any of the disqualifications mentioned in that provision ; he has not, therefore, ceased to be a member of the Panchayat. Section 150 provides for the removal of the President and section 152 provides for a motion of no-confidence by the members of the Panchayat against its President. Both the sections provide a complete procedure in themselves for the passing of the resolution referred to therein. Section 150 provides for the removal of the President and section 152 provides for a motion of no-confidence by the members of the Panchayat against its President. Both the sections provide a complete procedure in themselves for the passing of the resolution referred to therein. Under the previous Act, that is, the Madras Village Panchayats Act, 1950, section 47 empowered the Inspector to remove the President of a Panchayat, who, in his opinion, wilfully omitted or refused to carry out or disobeyed the provisions of the Act or any rules, bye-laws, regulations or lawful order issued thereunder, or abused the powers vested in him. But the Act of 1958 has made a change. It provides that if in the opinion of the Inspector, the President of a Panchayat is guilty of any of the acts or omissions aforesaid, he should send a proposal for his removal to the Panchayat and it is only if the Panchayat were to accept the proposal the. President could be removed Sub-clauses (3) and (5) of section 150 provides that the meeting for the consideration of he Inspector’s proposal should be presided over by the Tahsildar and by nobody else. This provision, which enables the conduct of the meeting by an impartial third party gives a further advantage to the President himself, who, in his capacity as a member of . the Panchayat, could vote on the motion. Sub-clause (12) provides that if the proposal has been accepted by the Panchayat, the Inspector shall, by notification remove the President from Office. Under sub-clause (13), once a notification has been issued, the President: " shall be ineligible for election as President.................... and for holding any of those Offices until the date on which notice of the next ordinary elections to the Panchayat is published in the prescribed manner or the expiry of one year from the date specified in the notification, which-ever is earlier. " This provision, by itself suggests that a resolution once passed accepting the proposal of the Inspector as to removal of the President, cannot be rescinded by the Panchayat after the notification. To sum up: the statute itself provides for the tenure of office of the President of a Panchayat. " This provision, by itself suggests that a resolution once passed accepting the proposal of the Inspector as to removal of the President, cannot be rescinded by the Panchayat after the notification. To sum up: the statute itself provides for the tenure of office of the President of a Panchayat. If a President has not been removed under the provisions of section 150 or has resigned as a result of a no-confidence motion passed against him under section 152, he will be entitled to hold office as a President so long Is he is a member of the Panchayat. The various provisions contained in section 150 show that a President can by removed only by following the procedure prescribed in that section. There is no provision in that section for the cancellation of a resolution once passed. It must, therefore, be held that the statute did not recognise any Common Law right in the Panchayat for removing its President, nor does it recognise any power in that body to restore a President who has been removed. We therefore agree with Srinivasan, J., when he observed: "It is clear therefore, that it was not a normal business meeting of the Panchayat, that is contemplated by section 150, and the decision of the Panchayat under section 150 (11) is not a resolution of the Panchayat which is liable to be modified at a subsequent meeting. That particular proposal which led to the decision of the Panchayat cannot form part of the business of the Panchayat, which the President can, by convening a special meeting, cancel or modify. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed with costs. R.M. ------------- Appeal dismissed.